Good article, Irfan. Although context is crucial when making a legitimate comparison. If Israeli was the religious leader of Aussie Jews, and if he had said about women the things Hilali said (among all the other things), and if Jews were responisble for 99.9% of international terrorist incidents in recent times, etc etc etc then yes, I think his comments would have raised the same level of ire.... don't you? Nothing to do with being anti-Muslim per se.

I have lived in a Muslim country for over a year, met many fantastic Muslim people, who are exactly like the vast majority of people - they just want to get on with the business of getting on. Regardless, I think some of these people could easily be whipped up into a frenzy (like all religious groups) and therefore the comments of leaders of political & religious groups need to be scrutinised more so than non-leaders. It's common sense, no? The reactions to both Hilali & Israeli were reasonable in my opinion. Let's hope they & other would-be rabble rousers learned a lesson. Talk about which religi

(contd)

(to some posters) As for talk about which religion is the correct one, or whether none are, that is 100% futile. Yes, your group will persuade a few hundred at best, but is that worth the enmity that generates?

Arjay.. the most 'negative'(to the non Christian) aspect of NT Christianity I think is its exclusive nature..

"for God so loved the world that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" John 3:16

Clearly, according to this, those who do not believe, will perish.

It is a message of hope and of despair at the same time, depending on whether people embrace Christ or not.

But as Paul says in regard to his own responsibility to bring this same message to his own..the Jews..

["2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel.] (Rom 9:2ff)

'could' but doesn't...why ? because he knew the one who called him, and he remembered his Damascus road experience.. the light, the voice, the blindness, the healing..etc

But apart from that, and possibly the issues of women in Church, I don't find much that can be called 'negative'.

To be Christian is to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and the fruit of the Spirit is:

Galatians 5
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control

which are contrasted with the works of the 'flesh'

'sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.

Probably the MOST negative is the imagery in Revelation about the end of the world and judgement. But negative only to those outside of Christ.

"They just want to get on with the business of getting on. Regardless"

Yes TNT, that is corrects, but religion aside, what would you suggest being the catalyst that prevents this?
Remember; Religion takes on many forms be it to Idol minds.
Even the staunchest Atheist or Agnostic/ Islamists worship a religious deity- namely Altruism.
This entails a mind bending conundrum to re- define the metaphysics to be what they wish it to be, and not what it is; From a philosophical stand point- Or how we can define now days as; ‘Derrida Deconstructionist’, and ; ‘Lacan psychoanalysis’.-‘ Foucault social sciences’ – ‘Lyotard post modernism’ - ‘Baudrillard and some Cultural practices’
.
The Primary design is to Dislodge and reorder human consciousness to a form that is not natural occurring in Humans; by seizure ones Conscious soul, forces people to enter the realms of an Invented Metaphysics for relief (Submit); You have entered the antipathy of Intellectual Twilight zoned Altruism; or a Surreal meaning of nothingness, Then Label it for what it is not.
Irfan does this well, as does Trad. As do Proletariat Useless Idiots.
You have to learn their arsenal of Weaponry to understand. Guns and bombs are not the only thing’s used.
“Phonocentrism- Logocentrism”

This thread has become rather predictable thanks to Irfan and David Boaz. That is, they both employ the 'American Gun Lobby Tactic' - as I call it.

The Pro-Gun lobbyists use the tired old argument that, "It's not the gun that kills people but rather the person behind the gun."

The obvious rebuttal is that there will always be angry violent people in any given society - so we to preempt their inevitable violence and dry up the supply of guns.

And so it is with monotheism. Monotheism inevitably begats fundamentalism and bigotry. Which in turn escalates conflict within society, and between societies. Therefore, we dry up fundamentalist theology by attacking its base. This is the right and moral thing to do.

So, with that in mind I will make the point that Islam and Christianity are BOTH flawed because there are NO such thing as angels - Gabriel or otherwise. No one has ever seen an angel. Not ever. And if they think that they have seen (or heard) an angel then their delusion can easily be explained by neuroscience and medicine. Hasn't any monotheist ever heard of schizophrenia or narcolepsy!?

"If Israeli was the religious leader of Aussie Jews, and if he had said about women the things Hilali said (among all the other things), and if Jews were responisble for 99.9% of international terrorist incidents in recent times, etc etc etc then yes, I think his comments would have raised the same level of ire"

I don't suggest Israeli's opinion represents all Jews, nor that he was a religious leader. As for 99.9% of international terrorist incidents, it depends on how you define an international terrorist incident. Would you regard the massacre of 3,000 Gujrati Muslims by Hindu-fascist mobs supported by the BJP state and federal governments as an international terrorist incident? How about suicide bombing missions carried out by the LTTE? Or the kidnappings in South America by groups like FARK?